TRENTON, New Jersey: A key legal hurdle has shifted in favour of women accusing Johnson & Johnson of causing ovarian cancer with its talc products, after a court-appointed official recommended that juries be allowed to hear expert testimony supporting that claim.

In a decision that could accelerate thousands of long-running lawsuits, retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, serving as special master, said plaintiffs should be permitted to present expert evidence linking Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and other talc products to ovarian cancer. The recommendation affects more than 67,500 lawsuits consolidated in federal court in New Jersey and clears the way for the first federal trial to begin later this year, potentially.

Expert testimony is often decisive in product liability cases, where plaintiffs must show that a product is capable of causing the harm alleged. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp, who oversees the litigation in Trenton, New Jersey, appointed Wolfson to evaluate which expert opinions meet the scientific standards required under federal law. Her findings are advisory and subject to objections before Shipp decides whether to adopt them.

In her 658-page report, Wolfson concluded that experts for the plaintiffs should be allowed to testify that use of Johnson & Johnson talc products can cause ovarian cancer — a claim the company disputes.

"I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiffs' experts have applied reliable methodologies to arrive at their opinions that the pre- and post-2020 epidemiologic studies, taken as a whole, demonstrate a positive, statistically significant association between genital talc powder use and ovarian cancer," Wolfson wrote.

She also said Johnson & Johnson would be allowed to present its own experts to challenge those conclusions. Wolfson stressed that she was not weighing which side was correct, but only whether the experts' methods were sufficiently reliable to be presented to a jury.

At the same time, Wolfson sided with Johnson & Johnson on several issues. She said expert testimony linking heavy metals or fragrance chemicals in the company's products to cancer should be excluded, as should a theory that talc can migrate to the ovaries through inhalation. She declined to rule on several other challenges, pending hearings scheduled for later this month and early February.

Johnson & Johnson criticized the recommendation and said it would challenge it. In a statement, Erik Haas, the company's worldwide vice president of litigation, said Wolfson's conclusions were flawed.

"The Special Master breached that duty, failing to conduct the requisite rigorous review of the studies cited by the plaintiffs' experts," Haas said, arguing that judges have a "gatekeeping duty" to ensure expert testimony is reliable.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Chris Tisi welcomed the report, calling it a validation of the scientific basis of the lawsuits.

"Based on sound evidence that Johnson's Baby Powder can cause ovarian cancer. We are grateful that, after all of J&J's delays, these women and their families will finally have their day in court," he said.

Shares of Johnson & Johnson fell about 0.4 percent in after-hours trading.

The ruling marks the second time Wolfson has reviewed the scientific evidence in the case. She previously oversaw the multidistrict litigation from its creation in 2016 until her retirement in 2023. In 2020, she ruled that experts could testify that talc products may have been contaminated with asbestos, a claim Johnson & Johnson denies.

Judge Shipp ordered a fresh review of the science in 2024, citing more rigid federal rules on expert testimony and the emergence of new studies.

Johnson & Johnson has fought the talc claims for years and maintains its products are safe. It stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the United States in 2020, switching to cornstarch.

The company has also unsuccessfully tried three times to resolve the litigation through bankruptcy, most recently in April 2025, delaying many cases for years. Some state court trials have already produced mixed results, including verdicts as high as US$4.69 billion, later reduced on appeal, and recent mesothelioma verdicts exceeding $1.5 billion.